clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

of thee I sing

October 4, 2009 By clarkscottroger

(for fans of 1970’s rock and roll albums, I paraphrase: “people keep asking, wheres the roger?”)

Being the being that be what I am, I indulge in the following screwing with the system, a re-positioning of a comment by the (Progenitor) roger. (Hint: he is one of the three in the picture to the left.)

(From the Roger; Beware the UltraRoger)
Being a Roger, I am eerily cognizant of how important it is to other Rogers to have a supply of regularly updated examples of our kind in action in the world. Helps us to look up from the particular patch of grass that we are currently obsessing on, and take notice of other elements in our world that we can be equally obsessed with.( Ah, bitter sarcasm…) And maybe someday, through simple repetition, to rise above obsession altogether. To actually achieve complete spiritual freedom. Nirvana. Salvation. I find it quite ironic that the ultimate lesson of the Wakefield Doctrine is to be able to abandon the Wakefield Doctrine. If you meet the Clark on the road, kill him…
So… today’s illustration begins with me going, as I often do, to the local library. Chance would have it that today they were hosting a book sale, which is normally a somewhat less than stellar event. Typically attended by a sporadic assortment of damaged and battle-weary Rogers and Clarks, with an occasional flanking raid by a half-starved and fervently desperate Scott. But this one was way different. It might have been the driving rain that did it, or an aftereffect of a tanked economy, but the place was packed. Overrun with the flat-out strangest damned array of human flotsam I’ve seen in a while, and between years of rock and roll bands and re-enacting, believe me, I have seen some truly jaw- dropping weirdness. I am not aspiring to separate myself from my brethren, but these people worried me. There is, in the world, a very particular and really disturbing faction of casualties who seem to lurk in the corners of public places, and especially favor libraries. ( Of course I am NOT included here; I always have a very good reason for being there. I peruse; they just wander aimlessly) From the teenager with the hopefully functional cassette walkman who sat in a corner doggedly going through an entire mountain of books on tape, to the three old ladies running what I think was meant to be a row of antique tables but was actually an assortment of broken lamps and crockery, truly filthy small kitchen appliances ( a blender with several multi-colored rings inside of it, really very Van Gogh if you looked at it from a safe distance) and possibly the strangest of all; several boxes of old dolls, all of whom seemed to be missing limbs. Now , all this has been seen before, at flea markets and such…but at the library?
The massive display of books was very well organized, each section with a dutiful attendant bagging books and answering the geuinely strange questions that can be posited only by a tragically twisted Roger or Clark. ” There is a particular James Patterson title that I need. Why don’t you have it? Why can’t you get it for me? Do the other libraries have it? Can I get it from the regular library shelf? Why not?” And so on. Not a single one of them seemed to understand the subtle nuance between a Borders retail store and…a library fundraiser.
As implied, Rogers were in great supply here. All shapes and sizes. All social groupings. Families, with children posing weird questions to their parents, who in turn demanded them to the hapless and exasperated librarians. Couples…” no, honey, get the other one.” This, overheard while a pair of Land’s End professorial sorts pored through a few dozen of the same Dean Koontz title, looking for the most recent printing. Why? Why is this important? Am I less of a Roger for wanting to reprimand them? For realizing that if they were at the outer edge of the herd, even a badly wounded Scott could get them both with one stroke? One should remain vigilant while the other indulges. This is a cardinal rule for fledgling Rogers.
And then I saw them. The Rogerian couple of all time and space. Consisting of a typically attractive but totally subserviant Rogerian female, and…him. Pretty impressive for suburban Rhode Island. She all but swept the floor before him as he passed through the crowded aisles without allowing any inferior creature to come into direct contact. Brown suede boots, straight jeans, Australian-style duster coat ( I hate those) and a meticulously polished and perfectly placed leather outback hat. With a chinstrap.( Hate all that, too.)Thank God that they don’t allow horses in libraries, he would have been sidesaddle, with a parasol. The look of utter distaste and contempt as he waited for the female to search for acceptable material for his perusal.He also had a carry-basket gleaned from the nearby supermarket. She would bring him a book; he would inspect it thoroughly ( for what, exactly, I could not determine), check the cover ( for tears, I suppose)and finally… smell it. Yes. Smell it. As if he were verifying Satan’s babies’ diapers. And then, if acceptable, it went in the bin. I observed, and resisted the urge to grab the chinstrap and try to fling him across the room. A small opportunity did present itself, however. The female brought him a book which he had just started inspecting when she brought yet another. He put the first one down while he was distracted by the second, and on impulse, I quickly moved in and grabbed the first one. Moving away, I immediately went to the checkout line,( I had had quite enough by then)and bought the damned thing just to screw up his day. Turns out, I now have a copy of an old Andrew Greeley detective novel. Completely useless. But it was worth the dollar. And it smells ok to me. But… the weirdest bit is that the main character in it has my same last name. It’s a pretty unusual name. Remember my other rant about Rogers and sychronicity? I know that it means something, but I haven’t the slightest idea what…
Oh, and I also got a copy of the Eric Clapton biography that came out last year. It was in a section marked ” Rogerian Apologists.” ( That is not true.)

So, kindly leave a donation on your way out, mind the stairs and be sure to come back.

Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

from the top

September 29, 2009 By clarkscottroger

The Wakefield Doctrine is fun way of looking at personality types. We say there are three personality types: clarks, scotts and rogers. If you know that your spouse is a roger, for instance, then you will understand why they act the way that they do. If they are scottian personality types then they will behave thusly or will like to do this or do that.

Everyone loves a good ‘personality type’ system. Be it astrology, body types, or birth order we all have a desire to understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do. Personality (type) systems be it EPPS or ENTMP, axis of civility(AOC) or the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, are entertaining because they are mirrors. They offer us a different way to look at the familiar.

There is an old story/fable/lesson that tells about how a traveller to a new country asks the first person he encounters what are the people in the Village like ? He is told ‘everyone is very suspicious and hostile’. Then, a day later, a second traveller does the same thing and this time he is told, ‘everyone who lives in the Village is warm and friendly’. A year later these two explorers meet and talk about their adventures. One says to the other, there was one place where everyone was really mean and distrustful’ and the other explorer, recognising the landmarks says, ‘I went to the same Village but everyone was friendly…’!

We have all heard a version of this story at some point in our lives and the lesson is, of course, that “expectation will determine our experiences with people”.

The Wakefield Doctrine takes this morality tale a step further. We say that each of us begins life with a predisposition or bias to what can be expected from life and that becomes the life we live. If you believe that the world is inimical, hostile, a place of predator and prey, then the world is like that. The Wakefield Doctrine approaches personality types from the position that if you know the bias a person has towards the world at large, then you will know how they will act and react, without ever meeting that individual.

Here we talk about a person being a clark or a scott or a roger. Three ways to view the nature of the world. This is not about gender nor it is about age or culture or even race. It is simply ‘did you start your life believing the world was like…? ‘

Then you are a roger or a clark or a scott.

Everything else you would want to know follows from that.

This blog is new, not so well organised, but the information you will find here comes from people who know about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and if you read through all the pages you will come to understand and you will see the world (and the people in it) in a slightly different, but very interesting way.

Ed Note: The best place to start reading this blog all depends on which of the three personality types you are. But, you ask, how can I know which I am before I read this? Congratulations, you are a roger. If you read this previous sentence and said, ‘no kidding’ to yourself, you are a clark and everyone else is a scott. So, clarks and scotts head on over to the ‘By these names…’ Page and you rogers had best start with the ‘You might be a …’ Page, if you find the Ken Burns bit funny, your type is confirmed.

Good Luck!

Do me a favor and write some Comments. I have been told that my writing style is a bit stiff and formal, and it is taking every ounce of willpower not to use a parenthesis, but if you Comment and say, ‘Hey! Let go and use them parentheses(es)(s).‘ I really will appreciate it. And as a reward, I recommend that you go to the Post titled ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (a Prehistory)’¹ it is fun and uninformative to read.

(1) Doesn’t count as using a parenthesis, it is the Title of the Post, dammit

Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

a clark, a scott and a roger are stranded on a desert island

September 23, 2009 By clarkscottroger

(...ask your Progenitor)

Good news and bad news.

The good news is that we are starting to get feedback from people heretofore totally unfamiliar with the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers);

The bad news, they say that they are having trouble understanding the Doctrine after their visit to this blog.

Which reminds me of a joke…

Actually, it makes as much sense as anything else to turn our attention to humor and what the Wakefield Doctrine can tell us about those we find funny and maybe even those we do not (find funny.)

Lets start with three clarklike comedians: Steven Wright and Woody Allen, Ellen Degeneris

Ok. (Hold your questions until later!) Now here is a pretty diverse set of scottian comics: Denis Leary , Henny Youngman , followed by Joan Rivers and Maria Bamford

Finally the rogerian philosophers: Jim Gaffigan, Jerry Seinfeld, and Kathy Griffen

You are probably saying at this point, ‘What the hell does this have to do with comprehending the Wakefield Doctrine’? (Or words to that effect. scott: “HTFU, get back to the comedians”, roger: “go ahead tell me more so that I can relate my own experiences” or clark: “alright, you have my attention”.)

(Give me a minute, I had the rationale here when I started this Post…)

The basis for the Doctrine is that the manner in which a person relates to the world determines their personality. Further, this ‘manner or style’ is a function of how the person chooses perceive the world. (You have all heard the expression, ‘reality is perception’.)

Every one of us interpret our relationship to the world at large in a characteristic way; the terms used in the Wakefield Doctrine are, of course: as a clark (would), as a scott (would) as a roger (would). These links will take you to a page devoted to one of the three forms.

Or if you just want an Overview of what we are talking about, then go to the ‘By these names you will know them’ page. If you are a scott or a roger and are feeling particularly brave try the ‘So, which am I?‘ (Warning! not for the insecure scott or roger).

Got to go look at some more clips, what a time in history we live!

Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

?

September 19, 2009 By clarkscottroger

Welcome once again to the Wakefield Doctrine which is really to say welcome to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. You/we have been introduced to the Progenitors: Clark, Scott and Roger. Estimable personages they are. Partiality aside, the theory put forth in this blog is both valid and verifiable. In order to reach this conclusion, you the reader, must first read each page (including comments). And then read again.

The Progenitors, as well as all contributing authors, have provided insurmountable proof that people behave according to their predominant world view (ie. that of a clark, scott or roger). Here at the Wakefield Doctrine one can find true stories, film clips, fun facts and humorous anecdotes to support the idea that anyone can understand anyone else simply by knowing if a person is a clark, scott or roger.

No one would argue that there are certain advantages to this. Wouldn’t you want to: Know ahead of time how your new boss operates? How to anticipate his actions/reactions? (don’t get on his bad side unless you are immune to screaming and/or tirades) or Know exactly how the volunteer coordinator at your child’s school plans to keep everyone helping everyone else?( insert wide grin, saucer eyes, too pleasant voice) or What’s the best approach to the new employee – the one that seems shy, maybe a little distant, aloof even. (compliment her on her footwear or for him, throw out a quote from Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction).

Good so far? No. Not for me. It’s not enough. It’s not enough just to know/learn who is a clark or who is a scott or who is a roger. That’s the fun part. What I want to know is how can I make this thing (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) work for me?

So the larger question remains: how can I better myself and by extension my life by knowing who is the clark, the scott and the roger? I/you have identified characteristic behavior, observed interpersonal dynamics of family, friends and co-workers (this can be both challenging and entertaining especially during the holidays and/or special occasions where there are large groups in attendance) and most importantly of course, identified my/your own self.

The challenge now is how to utilize the other two world views. How do I, an admitted (but not yet committed) clark, wander the earth using my latent scottian and rogerian qualities to my advantage. How do I think like a clark, act like a scott, and feel as a roger?

Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

socratic dialogue? I got ya socratic dialogue, right here

September 18, 2009 By clarkscottroger

…for those of you just tuning-in¹here is the backstory: new to the blogosphere and hampered by limited writing skills and website design ability, the authors of the Wakefield Doctrine are struggling to shape a message that will entice visitors and readers into delving further into the content and becoming fans of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (aka the Wakefield Doctrine). Lets see what those scamps have come up with now…

(…So maybe the best approach to presenting the Wakefield Doctrine is to write what would be said in person.)

The Wakefield Doctrine says that all people can be divided into three types or groups. These groups are named clarks, scotts and rogers.

Is there a reason for these particular names?

Only in the sense that the Wakefield Doctrine originated from observations of three real people. But the names are not important.

The three types have clearly different ways of seeing the world and clearly different ways of reacting to situations and the characteristics of each stays consistent, from individual to individual within that type.

Could you repeat that using the English language?

Sure. Each of the 3 types act a certain way. Watch how they act or look at them or whatever and then match what you see to one of the 3 and you will know all about that person. Spot a clark by their posture or lack of eye contact and you will know a whole lot more about them, (same for scotts and rogers).

OK. This is like one of those TYPE A or you are an introvert/extrovert personality things?

Kind of.

Alright, what am I? And what can you tell me about me that you should not be able to guess?

Depends. If you are a roger, then we know that you like geneology, you think that those re-enacters (Civil War) are not overly weird. You like to believe that you behave in a way that would make your family proud. If you are a scott, you crave activity, action, competition. You love a party and are good at telling jokes and making people laugh. A clark will read this and already know where this is all going.

These are mere parlor tricks² the Wakefield Doctrine is about understanding those around us. Why they act the way that they do.

What? Why would I need to understand those around me. I know how I act so why would I care?

Because, you have read this far; if you did not care or were not curious, this blog would be 2 clicks behind celebritymoviearchives.com (or some other equally incisive site).

Alright, make your point. Tell me what I need to know to understand (other people).

No.

(My feelings are hurt. I know you are just humoring me. I can see you snicker and wink at your friends, when you think I am not watching…)

If you want to learn about this thing, then you, the overactive one, drumming your fingers because the computer is limited by the speed of light³ go to THIS PAGE and read everything there, after you finish go to THIS PAGE.

You, the one with the ‘I can’t wait to tell my friends about this silly site’ smile on your face. You go to THIS PAGE and then go to THIS PAGE.

Finally, both of you go to THIS PAGE.

…Let me know how you make out.

(1) tuning-in an old persons reference to the days of radio when there was only analog and a rotary dial used to move from one station to the other.

(2) parlor from the days when some homes (the larger ones) had a room used just for entertaining guests, pre-cursor to our modern living room (which, in turn, is being replaced by the ‘family room’).

(3) speed of light equals 186,000 mps (at least thats what everyone but the rogers think it is.)

Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine